Most accurate way to compare CPU's? single/multi core

[Brumboy]

Not without testing a load of games and checking your framerate. Steve at Gamers Nexus doesn't do testing marathons for the fun of it. It really is the best way.

Are you actually unhappy with the framerate of your current CPU?

True I will look at his reviews again.

I play esports games so nothing demanding in terms of graphics but there are stutters and the min fps is low playing at 144hz. I literally turn every graphical setting to low to maintain 144hz in all situations. As in I'm pushing my CPU to the limit at 1080p.

Apologies, yes its as good as any I guess, I wouldn't get too hung up on single core these days as long as its in the ball park, threads are far more important especially with the arrival of the new consoles, unless you are chasing the 1080p dream, then I guess its intel

No problem! I really would avoid Intel as the upgrade paths are so limited. My CPU budget is around £300 which would get me a 10600k or a 4700x in the future. Obviously both of these CPU's have a lot more threads than my little 4690k!

I had a 4690K running at 4.6Ghz, compared with the 3600 i have now the difference is huge.

What GPU do you have?

I have a Zotac 2080 Extreme Core, play at 1080p/144hz. You say the difference is huge can you give me some examples in terms of fps numbers please?

When testing CPU benchmarks, you will typically find that the benchmark is done with top end GPU & RAM, and the CPUs they're comparing.

E.g. if you're looking at a benchmark for 10600K, 10700K, 3600X, 3700X then they will usually be paired with a 2080 Ti.

They do this because they're trying to measure the maximum potential differences, by reducing any potential bottlenecks from the GPU and RAM and putting it onto the CPU. In addition, you will notice that some people will review CPUs at 1080p medium or low settings - another way of pushing the load onto the CPU, helping the reviewer to measure maximum differences.

While this does indeed provide the best insight into how good the CPU actually is, it isn't always representative. Why? Well, not everyone would pair a 3600X with a 2080 Ti - these differences will be less pronounced as you move to a less powerful GPU, where the GPU again becomes more of a bottleneck.

As a result, you might find that the differences between your 4670K, 3600X and a 9900K at 1080p max settings with a 2060, for example, are much lower (4-5%).

I don't know of any benchmarks that use midrange GPUs for CPU gaming tests, but it might be worth checking out.

Thank you for the informative reply. I totally understand.

Which reviewers tend to test at 1080p medium or low settings?

See that is what I am worried about. Upgrading everything then finding in the real world not much difference between both setups.

I am looking at getting a 280hz monitor though, very tempted. If I get one then I would defo need a top CPU!

 

[welshrat]

True I will look at his reviews again.

I play esports games so nothing demanding in terms of graphics but there are stutters and the min fps is low playing at 144hz. I literally turn every graphical setting to low to maintain 144hz in all situations. As in I'm pushing my CPU to the limit at 1080p.




No problem! I really would avoid Intel as the upgrade paths are so limited. My CPU budget is around £300 which would get me a 10600k or a 4700x in the future. Obviously both of these CPU's have a lot more threads than my little 4690k!



I have a Zotac 2080 Extreme Core, play at 1080p/144hz. You say the difference is huge can you give me some examples in terms of fps numbers please?



Thank you for the informative reply. I totally understand.

Which reviewers tend to test at 1080p medium or low settings?

See that is what I am worried about. Upgrading everything then finding in the real world not much difference between both setups.

I am looking at getting a 280hz monitor though, very tempted. If I get one then I would defo need a top CPU!

latest review of intels latest at 1080p, zen 3 is looking at a possible 17% uplift so will probably sit top of this tree but at least you can see where the current ryzens sit in a few games

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_10900k_processor_review,24.html

 

[MrRockliffe]

Thank you for the informative reply. I totally understand.

Which reviewers tend to test at 1080p medium or low settings?

See that is what I am worried about. Upgrading everything then finding in the real world not much difference between both setups.

I am looking at getting a 280hz monitor though, very tempted. If I get one then I would defo need a top CPU!

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Gamers Nexus. I think their testing procedure is amongst the best, even including margins of error within their graphs.

latest review of intels latest at 1080p, zen 3 is looking at a possible 17% uplift so will probably sit top of this tree but at least you can see where the current ryzens sit in a few games

While yes, Ryzen 3 could see 17% increase in performance, it would be wrong to suggest to people that it will be at the top of the chart without physical evidence.




Currently, as it stands, best CPUs for gaming are 8 cores with clock speeds of 5 GHz. The Ryzen lineup is close enough/on par at 1440p where the GPU is being strained, and has become a as bottleneck, but if you’re looking for maximum FPS Intel is currently still the best.


That said, I almost certainly wouldn’t invest in an Intel platform. If you want a new CPU, get a 3700X with a new B550 motherboard when they’re out - considerably better upgrade path and you probably won’t notice the difference in FPS. You can use the extra money for a better GPU that will give you a more significant performance delta.

 

[Disco_P]

Given what you play and the settings you use look at this HUB video

https://youtu.be/GW84hUjMxHc

 

[Joxeon]

Currently the 10600k would be your best choice at your budget for 1080p high fps gaming maybe that will change with zen 3.

 

[BigBANGtheory]

Is Cinebench a good way to compare single core and multi core performance between CPU's, specifically for gaming purposes? Pretty much every review out there contains a Cinebench benchmark test.

Its a poor measure for gaming but useful for other areas because PC's are rarely used purely for gaming even if you are a gamer.

You hear all the time Intel is best performance for gaming, but you soon realise they are using 1080p resolution to justify that claim. What they should really say is Intel is best performance for 1080p gaming.

It maybe the next gen GPUs can demonstrate differences at 1440p, but you've also got Zen3 by then which may well leap over Intel in these area's too and many predict it will for all round performance.

 

[~>Dg<~]

for gaming benchmarks either ask people you know and trust or find people who arent biased and look at good cpu benchmarks for games the same as what you play.

current amd cpus are the same as a stock 8700 non k intel chip in games.

ones coming should be 9700k to 9900k atleast in games. so if you can wait for the new AMD cpus. they the real ones people been waiting for.

 

[jigger]

for gaming benchmarks either ask people you know and trust or find people who arent biased and look at good cpu benchmarks for games the same as what you play.

current amd cpus are the same as a stock 8700 non k intel chip in games.

ones coming should be 9700k to 9900k atleast in games. so if you can wait for the new AMD cpus. they the real ones people been waiting for.

So the OP should ignore this post then.

 

[jigger]

Intel say you should use your feelz not benchmarks to judge performance. I must admit an Intel CPU feels nice in the hand.

 

[humbug]

I have a Zotac 2080 Extreme Core, play at 1080p/144hz. You say the difference is huge can you give me some examples in terms of fps numbers please?

I would go with a Ryzen 3600 at least, the 4690K will bottleneck the crap out of a GPU like that, also look at Intel's 10K series, they are considerably more expensive but do offer a bit more gaming performance, to me the price difference isn't worth it for +10% better FPS and not even that if anything at all with an RTX 2080, 2080TI yes but not a 2080. Intel's whole platform is too expensive, more expensive motherboards, they require more expensive cooling because they run much hotter.

Ryzen 3600 vs 4690K, average about 60% faster in games, strangely he switched to a much slower 1080TI half way through that and the difference in performance is nothing like as high, because its a slower GPU, this also illustrates the diffrence between a 10600K and a 3600, the 3600 is 90% the performance of the 10600K but you only see that difference with a 2080TI

Games start here https://youtu.be/meHDdsO5n8s?t=53

Full video.

 

[~>Dg<~]

if you lasted that long with what you have and that gpu just wait for the newer amd cpus soon. why have something thats going to be about 15-20 percent slower as soon as you upgrade now. no point. just wait right now is a terrible time to upgrade. you can always wait for the next best thing but the next cpus are a lot better . not a couple of percent.

also the above benchmark doesnt show your cpu overclocked. which stock to overclocked is quite different.